Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies Part 14 docx

Full-Wave Modelling of Ground-Penetrating Radars: Antenna Mutual Coupling Phenomena and Sub-Surface Scattering Processes 377 (0) (0) 11 22 CC 0.579 p F (0) 21 C 14.562 f F (0) n 1  (1) (1) 11 22 RR 208.073  (1) (1) 11 22 LL 0.141 H  (1) (1) 11 22 CC 1.565 p F (1) 21 R 1.307 k  (1) 21 L 1.507 H  (1) 21 C 0.147 p F (1) n 1  (2) (2) 11 22 RR 322.581  (2) (2) 11 22 LL 0.092 H  (2) (2) 11 22 CC 0.235 p F (2) 21 R 1.838 k  (2) 21 L 1.084 H  (2) 21 C 0.020 p F (2) n 1  Table 1. Circuital parameters relevant to the equivalent circuit of the antenna pair. Structure characteristics: 40 d lcm  , 5 d Dmm  , 2.5mm   , 20 d scm  , 3 d hcm  . 6. Conclusion The full-wave analysis of electromagnetic sensing of buried pipes with GPR in realistic scenarios has been carried out. An enhanced locally conformal FDTD technique, useful to accurately model complex electromagnetic structures as well as ground-embedded inhomogeneities with arbitrary shape and material parameters, has been adopted. By using this scheme, an extensive parametric analysis of the antenna scattering parameters and radiated near-field spatial distribution has been performed for different Tx–Rx antenna separations and elevations over the ground, taking into account the presence of buried metallic and dielectric targets, as well as soil-embedded ellipsoidal inhomogeneities with arbitrary size, location and electrical properties. The obtained numerical results provide a physical insight into the underlying mechanisms of subsurface scattering and antenna mutual coupling processes. Finally, a frequency-independent equivalent circuit, useful to be employed in CAD tools, has been derived from the antenna scattering parameters, showing that including the effect of just a few resonant modes yields high numerical accuracy. Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies 378 7. Appendix In order to validate the accuracy of the proposed locally conformal FDTD scheme a number of test cases have been considered. Here the results obtained for the computation of the fundamental resonant frequency of a dielectric resonator enclosed in a metallic cavity are presented. The structure under consideration (see Fig. 13a) has been already analyzed in [5]. It consists of a perfectly conducting metallic cavity of dimensions 50ab mm and 30cmm , loaded with a cylindrical dielectric (ceramic) puck having diameter 36Dmm , (a) (b) Fig. 13. Geometry of a dielectric loaded rectangular cavity (a), and behaviour of the relevant fundamental resonant frequency r f as function of the FDTD mesh size h  (b). Shown is the confidence region where the relative error r e with respect to the reference resonant frequency 1.625 r GHz [5] is smaller than 0.1% . Structure characteristics: 50ab mm , 30cmm , 36Dmm , 16tmm  , 7hmm  . Relative permittivity of the dielectric puck: 37 r  . Full-Wave Modelling of Ground-Penetrating Radars: Antenna Mutual Coupling Phenomena and Sub-Surface Scattering Processes 379 height 16tmm and relative dielectric constant 37 r   . The puck is suspended at a distance of 7hmm from the bottom of the cavity. Since the dielectric permittivity of the resonator is rather high, the effect of the orthogonal Cartesian mesh being not conform to the resonator shape is expected to be noticeable. Here the structure is analyzed by means of a standard FDTD scheme featuring the traditional staircase approximation of the resonator’s contour, and by means of the weighted averaging approach proposed in [7], and the locally conformal FDTD technique detailed in Section III. The numerical results obtained from these FDTD schemes are compared against the ones reported in [5] resulting from the use of a commercial Transmission Line Matrix (TLM) method-based solver. To this end, a cubic FDTD mesh having fixed spatial increment h  has been adopted to analyze the structure. As it appears in Fig. 13b, this example clearly demonstrates the suitability of the proposed approach to efficiently handle complex metal-dielectric structures with curved boundaries. The proposed locally FDTD scheme introduces a significant improvement in accuracy over the stair-casing approximation, converging very quickly to the reference value. Such feature is thus of crucial importance to optimize the design of antennas for ground-penetrating radar applications. 8. References [1] Caratelli D. & Cicchetti R., (2003). A full-wave analysis of interdigital capacitors for planar integrated circuits, IEEE Trans. Magnetics, Vol. 39(No. 3): 1598–1601. [2] Caratelli D., Cicchetti R., Bit-Babik G., & Faraone A., (2006). A perturbed E-shaped patch antenna for wideband WLAN applications, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., Vol. 54(No. 6): 1871–1874. [3] Caratelli D., Yarovoy A., & Ligthart L. P., (2007). Antennas for ground-penetrating radar applications, Delft University of Technology, Tech. Rep. IRCTR–S–032–07. [4] Caratelli D., Yarovoy A., & Ligthart L. P., (2008). Full-wave analysis of cavity-backed resistively-loaded bow-tie antennas for GPR applications, Proc. European Microwave Conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 204-207. [5] Chuma J., Sim C. W., & Mirshekar-Syahkal D., (1999). Computation of resonant frequencies of dielectric loaded rectangular cavity using TLM method, IET Electron. Lett., Vol. 35(No. 20): 1712–1713. [6] Daniels D., (2004). Ground Penetrating Radar, 2nd ed., IEE Press. [7] Dey S. & Mittra R., (1999). A conformal finite-difference time-domain technique for modeling cylindrical dielectric resonators, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., Vol. 47(No. 9): 1737–1739. [8] Fletcher R., (1980). Practical methods of optimization, John Wiley. [9] Freundorfer A., Iizuka K., & Ramseier R., (1984). A method of determining electrical properties of geophysical media, J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 55: 218–222. [10] Guillemin E. A., (1965). Synthesis of Passive Network: Theory and Methods Appropriate to the Realization and Approximation Problems, John Wiley. [11] Gürel L. & Oguz U., (2001). Simulations of ground-penetrating radars over lossy and heterogeneous grounds, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, Vol. 39(No. 6): 1190– 1197. Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies 380 [12] Gürel L. & Oguz U., (2003). Optimization of the transmitter–receiver separation in the ground-penetrating radar, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., Vol. 51(No. 3): 362–370. [13] lizuka K., Freundorfer A. P., Wu K. H., Mori H., Ogura H., & Nguyen V., (1984). Step- frequency radar, J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 56: 2572–2583. [14] Kaneda N., Houshmand B., & Itoh T., (1997). FDTD analysis of dielectric resonators with curved surfaces, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., Vol. 45(No. 9): 1645–1649. [15] Maloney J. G. & Smith G. S., (1993). A study of transient radiation from the Wu-King resistive monopole – FDTD analysis and experimental measurements, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., Vol. 41(No. 5): 668–676. [16] Montoya T. P. & Smith G. S., (1996). A study of pulse radiation from several broad- band loaded monopoles, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., Vol. 44(No. 8): 1172–1182. [17] Moray R. M., (1974). Continuous subsurface profiling by impulse radar, Proc. Eng. Found. Conf. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., pp. 213–232. [18] Peter L. Jr., Young J. D., & Daniels J., (1994). Ground penetration radar as a subsurface environmental sensing tool, Proc. IEEE, Vol. 82: 1802–1822. [19] Taflove A. & Hagness S. C., (2005) Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite Difference Time Domain Method, 3rd ed., Artech House. [20] Timmins I. & Wu K., (2000). An efficient systematic approach to model extraction for passive microwave circuits, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., Vol. 48(No. 9): 1565–1573. [21] Yee K. S., (1966). Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving Maxwell’s equations, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., Vol. 14(No. 3): 302–307. 18 Impact of Ultra Wide Band Emission on Next Generation Weather RADAR and the Downlink of UMTS2600 Bazil Taha Ahmed 1 and Miguel Calvo Ramon 2 1 Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 2 Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Spain 1. Introduction The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) agreed in February 2002 to allocate 7.5 GHz of spectrum for unlicensed use of ultra-wideband (UWB) devices for communication applications in the 3.1–10.6 GHz frequency band, the move represented a victory in a long hard-fought battle that dated back decades. With its origins in the 1960s, when it was called time-domain electromagnetic, UWB came to be known for the operation of sending and receiving extremely short bursts of RF energy. With its outstanding ability for applications that require precision distance or positioning measurements, as well as high-speed wireless connectivity, the largest spectrum allocation ever granted by the FCC is unique because it overlaps other services in the same frequency of operation. Previous spectrum allocations for unlicensed use, such as the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) band have opened up bandwidth dedicated to unlicensed devices based on the assumption that “operation is subject to the following two conditions: 1. This device may not cause harmful interference. Harmful interference is defined as interference that seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radio communication service. 2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. This means that devices using unlicensed spectrum must be designed to coexist in an uncontrolled environment. Devices utilizing UWB spectrum operate according to similar rules, but they are subject to more stringent requirements because UWB spectrum underlays other existing licensed and unlicensed spectrum allocations. In order to optimize spectrum use and reduce interference to existing services, the FCC’s regulations are very conservative and require very low emitted power. UWB has a number of advantages which make it attractive for consumer communications applications. In particular, UWB systems - Have potentially low complexity and low cost; - Have noise-like signal characteristics; - Are resistant to severe multipath and jamming; - Have very good time domain resolution. Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies 382 In 1988, the NEXRAD Agencies established the WSR-88D (Weather Surveillance Radar 88 Doppler) Radar Operations Centre (ROC) in Norman, Oklahoma. The ROC employees come from the National Weather Service, Air Force, Navy, FAA, and support contractors. The ROC provides centralized meteorological, software, maintenance, and engineering support for all WSR-88D systems. WSR-88D systems will be modified and enhanced during their operational life to meet changing requirements, technology advances, and improved understanding of the application of these systems to real-time weather operations. The ROC also operates WSR-88D test systems for the development of hardware and software upgrades to enhance maintenance, operation, and provide new functionality. NEXRAD is used to warn the people of the United States about dangerous weather and its location. Meteorologists can now warn the public to take shelter with more notice than any previous radar. There are 158 operational NEXRAD radar systems deployed throughout the United States and at selected overseas locations. The maximum range of the NEXRAD radar is 250 nautical miles. The NEXRAD network provides significant improvements in severe weather and flash flood warnings, air traffic safety, flow control for air traffic, resource protection at military bases, and management of water, agriculture, forest, and snow removal. The spectrum for UMTS lies between 1900 MHz to 2025 MHz and 2110 MHz to 2200 MHz. For the satellite service an own sub-band in the UMTS spectrum is reserved (uplink 1980 MHz to 2010 MHz, downlink 2170 MHz to 2200 MHz). The remaining spectrum for terrestrial use is divided between two modes of operation. In the FDD (Frequency Division Duplex) mode there are two equal bands for the uplink (1920 MHz to 1980 MHz) and for the downlink (2110 MHz to 2170 MHz). In the operation mode TDD (Time division duplex) uplink and downlink are not divided by use of different frequency carriers but by using different timeslots on the same carrier. So there is no need for a symmetrical spectrum but the remaining unpaired spectrum can be used. The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications administrations (CEPT) have recommended that the 2500-2690 MHz band should be reserved for the use by licensed UMTS services. It has been recommended that the 2500-2570 and 2620-2690 MHz bands should be paired for UMTS FDD deployment with frequency blocks in multiples of 5 MHz. Here after we will dominate this system by UMTS2600. In (Hamalainen et al., 2002) the coexistence of the UWB system with GSM900, UMTS/WCDMA, and GPS has been investigated. They have evaluated the level of the interference caused by different UWB signal to the three up mentioned systems. Also they have evaluated the performance degradation of UWB systems in the presence of narrow bandwidth interference and pulsed jamming. They have given the bit error rate (BER) of the above mentioned systems for different pulse length. In (Hamalainen et al., 2004) the coexistence of the UWB system with IEEE802.11a and UMTS in Modified Saleh-Valenzuela Channel has been studied. The UWB system performance has been studied in the presence of multiband interference. The interference sources considered are IEEE802.11a and UMTS which are operating simultaneously with their maximum system bandwidths. The system under consideration is single band and single user UWB link operating at data rate of 100 Mbps without error correction coding. They have given the bit error rate (BER) of the UWB system for different types of modulation (Direct sequence and Time Hopping). The interference between the UMTS and the UWB system has been studied in (Giuliano et al, 2003). The free space propagation model has been used to calculate the UWB signal propagation loss. It has been concluded that, a carrier frequency of 3.5 GHz is the minimum Impact of Ultra Wide Band Emission on Next Generation Weather RADAR and the Downlink of UMTS2600 383 allowable value for UWB device transmitting at 100 Mbps in order to avoid harmful interference between UMTS and UWB. In (Hamalainen et al., 2001a), the effect of the in band interference power caused by different kinds of UWB signal at UMTS/WCDMA uplink and downlink frequency bands has been investigated. UWB frequency spectra have been produced by using several types of narrow pulse waveforms. They have concluded that one can reduce interfering UWB power by using different waveforms and pulse widths to avoid UMTS frequencies without any additional filtering. In (Hamalainen et al., 2001 b) the effect of the in band interference power caused by three different kinds of UWB signal on GPS L1 and GSM-900 uplink band has been studied. UWB frequency spectra have been generated by using several types of narrow pulse waveforms based on Gaussian pulse. In band interference power has been calculated over the IF bandwidth of the two victim receiver as a function of the UWB pulse width. Also the signal attenuation with distance has been presented. In (Ahmed et al., 2004), the effect of the UWB on the DCS-1800 and GSM-900 macrocell downlink absolute range using the (Line of Sight) propagation model between the UWB transmitter and the mobile receiver has been studied without taking into account the shadowing factor within the propagation loss model. In (ITU, 2003), the effect of UWB system on fixed service system (point to point and Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) systems in bands from 1 to 6 GHz has been investigated. It has been concluded that, when the UWB transmitter is in LOS with the two systems antennas, the effect is very high when the UWB power density is -41.3 dBm/MHz. 2. UWB effect on the NEXRAD RADAR systems performance (detection) is almost the optimum when the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) is 16 dB or more. Any extra interference due to communications systems degrades the performance (probability of detection with constant range or the range with constant probability of detection) of the radar system. Thus, the extra interference should not exceed a given value. In practice, extra interference should be within the following range: 0.1 extra n RADAR IP   (1) where I extra is the extra interference due to other communications systems, P n-RADAR is the RADAR receiver noise calculated as: 10( ) 114 10 lo g ()() n RADAR MHZ PdB BWNFdB     (2) where  BW MHz is the radar system IF bandwidth measured by MHz .  NF(dB) is the RADAR receiver noise figure measured in dB. The UWB interference power I UWB is calculated by: () UWB UWB UWB exra Ant IPLdLG  (3) where  P UWB is the UWB EIRP in dBm in the radar band, Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies 384  L UWB (d) is the propagation loss between the UWB device and the RADAR system as a function of the distance between the UWB source and the radar,  L extra is the extra propagation loss due to tree or building insertion loss when is applicable,  G Ant is the RADAR antenna gain in the direction of the UWB transmitter.   is the second propagation exponent of the UWB signal with a typical value of 4 to 5 depending on the surrounding environment. Using the Two-Slope Propagation Model, the UWB signal propagation loss L UWB in dB at a distance d can be given as (Ciccoganini et al., 2005): 10 10 10 4 20log () 4 20log 10 log b UWB b b b d dR Ld R d Rd R                          (4) where λ is the wavelength and R b is the break point distance given by (Ahmed et al., 2002): 4 UWB RADAR b hh R   (5) where  h UWB is the UWB antenna height,  h RADAR is the RADAR antenna height. 3. UWB effect on the UMTS2600 downlink performance To account for UWB interference, an extra source of interference is added linearly to the UMTS2600 intracellular interference I UMTS . The interference power is calculated by assuming the UWB source to be at different distances from the UMTS2600 receiver (the mobile station). Therefore, the interference power generated by a device UWB, I UWB , is given by (in dBm) (Ahmed, Ramon, 2008): () UWB UWB UWB UMTS IPLdG  (6) where  P UWB is the UWB EIRP in dBm in the UMTS2600 band.  L UWB (d) is the path-loss between the UWB device and the UMTS2600 receiver which varies with the separation distance, d in m, and  G UMTS is the UMTS2600 antenna gain. Given that UWB devices are typically low power, short range devices, then the line-of-sight path-loss model is often most appropriate for distances less than 5m. Thus the UWB signal propagation loss in dB is calculated as (Ahmed, Ramon, 2008): 10 10 10 4 () 20lo g 20 lo g ( ) 40.92 20lo g () UWB Ld d d       (7) where λ is the wavelength at an operating frequency of 2.655 GHz. Impact of Ultra Wide Band Emission on Next Generation Weather RADAR and the Downlink of UMTS2600 385 The effect of the UWB interference is to reduce the UMTS2600 macrocell range or/and the macrocell capacity. The macrocell downlink range R UMTS with the existence of the UWB interference is given as (Ahmed, Ramon, 2008):  , UMTS s UMTS UMTS o UMTS UWB I RR II   (8) where RUMTS,o is the UMTS2600 downlink range without UWB interference. The UMTS2600 normalized macrocell range R n is given as:  , UMTS UMTS s n UMYTS o UMTS UWB RI R RII   (9) where s is the UMTS2600 outdoor signal propagation exponent (3.5 to 4.5). The UMTS2600 normalized downlink capacity C n is given as (Ahmed, Ramon, 2008): , UMTS UMTS n UMTS o UMTS UWB CI C CII      (10) where C UMTS is the UMTS2600 downlink capacity with the UWB interference, and C UMTS,o is the UMTS2600 downlink capacity without the UWB interference. 4. Results For an outdoor environment (UWB transmitter out side of any building), the FCC maximum permitted UWB EIRP power density for the frequency range 2.7 to 3.0 GHz is - 61.3 dBm/MHz while it is -51.3 dBm/MHz for indoor environment (UWB transmitter is within a given building). We study the effect of the UWB system on the NEXRAD system assuming that the RADAR receiver noise is – 114 dBm, its operating frequency is 2.9 GHz, the second propagation exponent α is 4 and that its antenna height is 30 m. Here we have assumed that, the UWB maximum allowed interference is -124 dBm (10 dB protection) which give a rise to about 2.5% reduction of the NEXRAD range. Fig. 1 shows the NEXRAD vertical pattern. Fig. 2 shows the acceptable UWB power density for three different UWB antenna heights. It can be noticed that the coordinate distance (minimum distance between the UWB transmitter and the Radar) is almost 0 km when the UWB antenna height is 3 m. The coordinate distance will be 1.12 and 1.50 km when the UWB antenna height is 15 and 30 m respectively. Second and third cases (UWB antenna height of 15 to 30 m) should be avoided as far as possible. At an UWB antenna height of 30m, the UWB interference will be injected to the NEXRAD receiver through the NEXRAD antenna main-lobe. Thus, the UWB effect will be the maximum. Fig. 3 shows the acceptable UWB power density for three different UWB antenna heights assuming that some trees are between the UWB antenna and the RADAR antenna and that the tree absorption loss is 10 dB. It can be noticed that the coordinate distance is 0 km when the UWB antenna height is 3 m. The coordinate distance will be 0 and 0.48 km when the UWB antenna height is 15 and 30 m respectively. Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies 386 Fig. 4 shows the acceptable UWB power density for three different UWB antenna heights assuming that the UWB transmitter is within a high building and that the wall absorption loss is 10 dB. It can be noticed that the coordinate distance is 0 km when the UWB antenna height is 3 m. The coordinate distance will be 1.12 and 1.50 km when the UWB antenna height is 15 and 30 m respectively. For the above three mentioned cases, it has been assumed that, the RADAR main beam is in the direction of the UWB transmitter and that the RADAR antenna has a tilt of 0.0 o . Fig. 5 shows the acceptable UWB power density for three different UWB antennas tilting assuming that the UWB antenna height is 3 m. It can be noticed that the coordinate distance is 0 km when the UWB antenna tilt is 0 o . Also, the coordinate distance will be 0 km when the UWB antenna tilt is 3 o or 6 o . Thus, the effect of the UWB is null with any positive RADAR antenna tilt of 3 degrees or more assuming that the UWB antenna height is 3 m. Fig. 6 shows the acceptable UWB power density for three different UWB antennas tilting assuming that the UWB antenna height is 30 m. It can be noticed that the coordinate distance is 1.5 km when the UWB antenna tilt is 0 o . The coordinate distance will be 0 km for UWB antenna tilt angle of 3 o and 6 o . The same results are applicable for an operating frequency of 3 GHz. For a distance of 100m between the UWB transmitter and the Radar, the UWB EIRP power density at 3 GHz should be -84 dBm/MHz or lower. -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Elevation angle (deg.) Gain (dB) Fig. 1. NEXRAD Vertical Antenna Pattern. [...]... tilt of NEXRAD antenna, the effect of the UWB system is null When the antenna heights of both UWB and NEXRAD are the same the effect of the UWB will be the maximum Also, it has been noticed that, when a group of trees or a given obstacle exist between the UWB and NEXRAD antennas, the effect of the UWB system will be lower than the case of clear path between the antennas of both systems The effect of the. .. lower than the accepted UWB power density of the UWB single transmitter case The UWB power density reduction depends on the number of the UWB transmitters and their spatial density, i.e., the higher is the number of UWB transmitters and their spatial density, higher should be the reduction of the UWB power density If we reduce the critical distance to 0.5m, we have to lower the maximum accepted UWB power... distance of 1m, the macrocell normalized capacity increases with the reduction of the UWB power density If we consider that the UWB system is un harmful when the UMTS capacity reduction is 1% or less then, the recommended UWB power density should be -79 dBm/MHz or lower Also, this power density is well below the FCC and the ETSI recommendations Then we study the case of multiple UWB transmitters with one UWB. .. separation between the UWB transmitter and the UMTS2600 mobile (PUWB = -51.3 dBm/MHz) 390 Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies We study the case of voice service (Gp = 25 dB and (Eb/No)req = 6 dB) (Ahmed, Ramon, 2008) assuming an UMTS2600 interference of -88 dBm (14 dB noise rise) and UWB power density of -51.3 dBm/MHz Fig 8 shows the downlink macrocell normalized range as a function of the separation... and the UMTS2600 mobile (PUWB = -51.3 dBm/MHz) 100 Macrocell normalized range % 99 98 97 96 95 94 -85 -80 -75 -70 UWB power density dBm/MHz -65 Fig 10 Effect of the UWB interference on the macrocell normalized range as a function of the UWB power density 392 Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies Fig 11 shows the downlink macrocell normalized capacity as a function of the UWB power density It can... another to perform the localization task The UT-based technology requires the installation of client software on the UT to determine its location On the other hand, network-based techniques utilize the service provider’s network infrastructure to identify the location of the UT The advantage of network-based techniques is that they can be implemented non-intrusively, without affecting the UTs One of the. .. The effect of the UWB transmitters on the UMTS2600 downlink for different configuration and environments has been studied It has been noticed that, for the case of low UWB power density (-79 dBm/MHz), the effect of the UWB signals is low when the distance between the UWB transmitter and the UMTS2600 receiver is greater than 1m For the case of multi UWB transmitters, the accepted UWB power density is... Weather RADAR and the Downlink of UMTS2600 395 5 Conclusions The effect of the UWB interference on the on Next Generation Weather RADAR (NEXRAD) has been presented The coordination distance has been given for different scenarios, i.e., for different UWB antenna heights, different NEXRAD antenna tilt and when a group of trees exist between the UWB antenna and the NEXRAD antenna Also the case of UWB. .. application of localization, in response to an emergency in a high rise building, a network of UWB sensors is deployed These sensors provide a localization network to responders (or UTs) moving inside the building The role of the sensors is to provide the UT with ranges The UT would broadcast a UWB signal, so that the sensors each measure the range to the UT, share the information and infer the location of the. .. 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from the UWB transmitter (km) 18 20 Fig 6 Maximum permitted UWB EIRP for an outdoor environment for three RADAR antenna tilt (UWB antenna height = 30m and RADAR antenna height = 30m) Here we address the effect of the UWB system on the downlink of the UMTS2600 system In the analysis we assume that the UWB data rate is higher than the UMTS2600 chip rate, i.e., the UWB bit rate . (3) where  P UWB is the UWB EIRP in dBm in the radar band, Novel Applications of the UWB Technologies 384  L UWB (d) is the propagation loss between the UWB device and the RADAR system. between the UWB and NEXRAD antennas, the effect of the UWB system will be lower than the case of clear path between the antennas of both systems. The effect of the UWB transmitters on the UMTS2600. antenna, the effect of the UWB system is null. When the antenna heights of both UWB and NEXRAD are the same the effect of the UWB will be the maximum. Also, it has been noticed that, when a group of